User:Susan Schneegans/sandbox/Brexit

Effect on academia[edit]
Despite a persistently low research intensity by EU standards – 1.63% of GDP in 2013, compared to an EU average of 2.02% –, the UK has a reputation for scientific excellence. It produces 15% of the world’s most highly cited articles for a share of just 4% of the global research pool. About 32 000 non-British EU academics occupy 17% of UK university teaching and research posts. In 2012, the UK hosted the second-largest contingent of international PhD students in science and engineering (9%) after the USA (49%), according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Many of these students come from other EU countries. International fee-paying university students represent a key source of funding for the British university system. They also contribute to the UK's knowledge pool.

As a member state of the EU, the UK participates in the European Research Area. All EU members contribute to the budget for each seven-year framework programme for research and innovation, the most recent of these being Horizon 2020, adopted in 2014. British research is a key beneficiary of EU funding. 'The UK receives billions of euros for research from the EU, mostly from its €74.8-billion Horizon 2020 programme'. For instance, in 2013, the UK received more research grants (over 1000) from the European Research Council (ERC) than any other EU country; 426 of these grants went to non-nationals based in the UK, the largest number of any EU country. Germany obtained just over 600 ERC grants.

EU member states are also entitled to structural funds. These are increasingly being used to finance research-related infrastructure. Structural funds will be out of reach for the UK, once it leaves the EU. The withdrawal from the EU might also incite international firms to scale down their plans to invest in research and development in the UK.

UK universities rely on the EU for around 16% of their total research funding and are disproportionately successful at winning EU-awarded research grants, as demonstrated by the aforementioned example of the European Research Council. This has raised questions about how such funding would be impacted by a British exit. Jamie L Vernon, Editor in Chief of American Scientist, says that the equivalent of about $1 billion of Britain's scientific discovery has been paid for by European funding programmes every year and that these resources will now be called into question. "EU officials are calling for an immediate separation and British academics are already being asked to withdraw from EU-funded projects or to resign from leadership roles". Scientists in favour of staying in the EU have also noted that membership allows researchers to move freely between member states and to work with no restrictions. A group of leading British scientists wrote a letter to the Times on 22 May 2015 stating that ‘it is not sufficiently known to the public that the EU is a boon to UK science and innovation. Freedom of movement for talent and ambitious EU science funding programmes, which support vital, complex international collaborations, put the UK in a world-leading position'. A Nature poll in March 2016 found that 83% of UK scientists were in favour of remaining in the EU. Pro-remain scientists set up a Scientists for the EU website in 2015.

In August 2016, the British government promised to step in to pay UK contributions to Horizon 2020 projects after Brexit, provided that the projects were bid for before the day that the UK left the EU. In November 2016, the prime minister announced an increase in government investment in research and development worth £2 billion a year by 2020 and a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund to back priority technologies.

A July 2016 investigation by The Guardian suggested a large number of research projects in a wide range of fields had been hit after the referendum result. They reported that European partners were reluctant to employ British researchers due to uncertainties over funding. Some researchers are contemplating moving to an EU country, in order to preserve their access to EU research funding post-Brexit. A number of politicians have encouraged them to make this move. For instance, when French presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron addressed more than 2,000 French expatriates in London in February 2017, he called for nationals to return home and for British banks, researchers and academics to move across the Channel after Britain leaves the EU.

The impact of a Brexit on science and innovation will depend heavily on the post-withdrawal relationship between the UK and the EU. Two models that are seen as being applicable to the UK are the Norwegian Model and the Swiss Model. Both Norway and Switzerland are associated members of the European Research Area. If the UK remained an associated member of the European Research Area, it would continue participating in the EU framework programmes for research and technological development. These are considered increasingly important in the UK for funding research, training PhDs and exchanging ideas and people. However, the co-operation agreement for each framework programme would have to be negotiated separately, especially if the UK were not a member of the European Economic Area.

Were the UK to opt for the Norwegian model, it would remain both a member of the European Economic Area and an associated member of the European Research Area. The UK would continue to make a significant financial contribution to the EU. In this case, the UK would be subject to much of the body of EU law and policy, yet its future influence on the EU would be limited.

Were the UK to opt for the Swiss model, it would not remain a member of the European Economic Area. Switzerland is entitled to participate in the European Research Area, however. A bilateral agreement with the EU allows Switzerland to take advantage of the main EU instruments in place for research, including the seven-year framework programmes for research and innovation, the Future and Emerging Technologies programme, the grants of the European Research Council and the Erasmus programme for student exchange. In return, Switzerland adheres to the four cornerstones of the EU's single market: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. However, after Switzerland tightened its immigration laws in 2014, following a popular referendum earlier that year, the EU granted Switzerland only limited rights to participation in Horizon 2020. Negotiations between Switzerland and the EU are ongoing.

St George's, University of London professor and UKIP campaigner Angus Dalgleish has argued that Britain paid much more into the EU research budget than it received, and that existing European collaborations such as CERN and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) began long before the Lisbon Treaty, adding that leaving the EU would not damage Britain's science. London School of Economics emeritus professor (and founder of UKIP) Alan Sked pointed out that non-EU countries such as Israel and Switzerland signed agreements with the EU in terms of the funding of collaborative research and projects. He also suggested that if Britain left the EU, Britain would be able to reach a similar agreement with the EU, and said that educated people and research bodies would easily find some financial arrangement during an at least 2-year transition period which was related to Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU).